Monday, October 31, 2011

From: Middle East propaganda 101 Secretary Clinton explains that the U.S. must increase its presence in the region to prevent "outside interference"(Salon.com) -- by Glenn Greenwald --

When it comes to American propaganda about the Middle East, this New York Times article — detailing U.S. plans to bolster its influence in the region after it “withdraws” from Iraq — is a masterpiece. Here’s the crux of the new American strategy and its ostensible rationale:

With an eye on the threat of a belligerent Iran, the administration is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new “security architecture” for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.

The U.S. has Iran completely encircled. It has over 100,000 troops in the nation on Iran’s eastern border (Afghanistan, where, just incidentally, the U.S. continued through this year to turn over detainees to a prison notorious for torture) and has occupied the nation on Iran’s western border (Iraq) for eight years, and will continue to maintain a “small army” of private contractors and CIA officials after it “withdraws.” The U.S. continuously flies drone aircraft over and drops bombs on the nation on Iran’s southeastern border (Pakistan). Its NATO ally (Turkey) is situated on Iran’s northwestern border. The U.S. has troops stationed in multiple countries just a few hundred miles across the Persian Gulf from Iran, virtually all of which are client states. The U.S. has its Fifth Fleet stationed in a country less than 500 miles from Iran (Bahrain) containing “US warships and contingents of U.S. Marines.” And the U.S. routinely arms Iran’s two most virulent rivals (Israel and Saudi Arabia) with sophisticated weaponry.

But, New York Times readers were told today, the U.S. must increase its military presence still further in that region because . . . it is Iran (which has no military bases in countries bordering the U.S. or fleets stationed off its coast) that is “belligerent” and poses a “threat” (after all, they just dispatched a failed Texan used car salesman who constantly loses his own keys and can’t pay his bills to hire teams of Mexican drug cartel gunmen to attack a Saudi ambassador on American soil!).

But the best proclamation in this article comes from the Secretary of State in explaining why this increased American presence is so very needed and so very noble:

“We will have a robust continuing presence throughout the region, which is proof of our ongoing commitment to Iraq and to the future of that region, which holds such promise and should be freed from outside interference to continue on a pathway to democracy,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in Tajikistan after the president’s announcement.

The U.S. will remain in that region to protect and defend the region’s “pathway to democracy” — something it will achieve by further strengthening its “cooperative military relationships” with the tyrannical regimes in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Oman (White House, October 12: “the President and the King reaffirmed the strong partnership between the United States and Saudi Arabia”). But, explained Secretary Clinton, the ultimate U.S. goal in increasing its military presence in the region is to prevent “outside interference” in the region — just as U.S. officials spent the last decade decrying “outside interference” in Iraq and Afghanistan while simultaneously invading and occupying those nations. The only conceivable assumption which can produce this sort of pronouncement is that this region is the property of the U.S., and when it increases its military presence there, that is akin to an owner fencing in his yard to prevent trespassing...MORE...LINK

The United Nations' cultural agency granted the Palestinians full membership on Monday, a step forward in their long-running efforts to achieve recognition before the world as an independent state.

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) became the first U.N. agency to welcome the Palestinians as a full member since President Mahmoud Abbas applied for full membership of the United Nations on September 23.

A huge cheer erupted in UNESCO's General Assembly after the vote, which marks a symbolic victory for Palestinians in the complex diplomacy that surrounds their collective status and relations with foreign powers.

"Today's victory at UNESCO is the beginning of a road that is difficult, but will lead to the freedom of our land and people from occupation," Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki said. "Palestine has the right to a place on the map."

Israel called the vote a "tragedy" and the decision damaged relations between UNESCO and the United States, an ally of Israel that provides about 22 percent of the body's funding, or some $70 million.

Legislation stipulates that the U.S. can cut off funding to any United Nations agency that accepts Palestinians as a member.

The White House said the vote was "premature" and would not aid peace and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said UNESCO would suffer.

"Today's vote to grant Palestinian membership in UNESCO is no substitute for direct negotiations, but it is deeply damaging to UNESCO," said Ambassador Susan Rice.

UNESCO director-general Irina Bokova, who previously pleaded for Washington not to withdraw support, told delegates funding may be jeopardized.

"I believe it is the responsibility of all of us to make sure that UNESCO does not suffer unduly... We need each and every member of this organization to be fully engaged," she added.

FRENCH ABOUT-FACE

The Palestinians got backing from two thirds of UNESCO's members to become its 195th member. Of 173 countries that voted from a possible 185, 107 voted in favor, 14 voted against, 52 abstained and 12 were absent. Abstentions did not count toward the final tally.

The Palestinians went to UNESCO after making a bid for recognition of the over-arching United Nations system in September before the U.N. Security Council, which has moved the issue to a committee where it is likely to run into a veto from the United States.

"This vote is not directed against anyone, but represents support for freedom and justice," Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement to the official news agency WAFA.

"This vote is for the sake of peace and represents international consensus on support for the legitimate Palestinian national rights of our people, the foremost of which is the establishment of its independent state."

But the breakdown of the vote reflected deep divergences in international views on Palestinian statehood.

The United States, Canada, Germany and Holland voted against Palestinian membership. Brazil, Russia, China, India, South Africa and France voted in favor. Britain and Italy abstained.

For the European Union, which has stumbled in recent efforts to develop a common foreign policy, the UNESCO vote highlighted persistent rifts with some member states voting for and some against Palestinian membership.

Austrian UNESCO ambassador Ursula Plassnik, whose country voted in favor, said she regretted that the EU had failed to arrive at a common position on Palestinian membership.

France, which previously abstained from a vote on the subject of Palestinian membership in UNESCO, broke with precedent to vote in favor on Monday.

"Since it has been raised today, we must assume our responsibilities and respond to the substance of the issue ... On the substance, France says "yes"- Palestine has the right to become a member of UNESCO," said Hubert de Canson, France's representative at UNESCO...MORE...LINK--------------------------

PARIS — The Obama administration cut off funding for the UN cultural agency on Monday, after its member countries defied an American warning and approved a Palestinian bid for full membership.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the vote triggered a long-standing congressional restriction on funding to UN bodies that recognize Palestine as a state before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached. She said the U.S. as a result would refrain from making a $60 million payment it planned to deliver in November.

"Today's vote by the member states of UNESCO to admit Palestine as a member is regrettable, premature, and undermines our shared goal of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East," Nuland told reporters. "The United States remains steadfast in its support for the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state, but such a state can only be realized through direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians."

The U.S. will maintain its membership and participation in the body, Nuland said, though it was not immediately clear how that would work if it was no longer paying its share of the costs...MORE...LINK

A wave of CIA drone strikes targeting al-Qaeda figures in Yemen is stoking widespread anger there that U.S. policy is cruel and misguided, prioritizing counterterrorism over a genuine solution to the country's raging political crisis.

Politics has never been a concern to Sam al-Homiganyi and his fellow teenagers. This month, though, they were shocked by the sudden death of a friend and are struggling to understand why.

Fighting back tears, his gaze fixed downward, al-Homiganyi, a lean-looking 15-year-old from the outskirts of Sana'a, told TIME, "He was my best friend, we played football together everyday." Another of his friends spoke up, gesturing to the gloomy group of jeans-clad boys around him: "He was the same as us. He liked swimming, playing computer games, watching movies ... you know, normal stuff." (See photos of Yemen on the brink.)

The dead friend was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a 16-year-old born in Denver, the third American killed in as many weeks by suspected CIA drone strikes in Yemen. His father, the radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, also an American citizen, was killed earlier this month, along with alleged al-Qaeda propagandist Samir Khan, who was from New York. When Abdulrahman's death was first reported in the Western press, his age was given as 21 by local Yemeni officials. Afterward, however, the Awlaki family put out a copy of Abdulrahman's birth certificate.

According to his relatives, Abdulrahman left the family home in the Sana'a area on Sept. 15 in search of his fugitive father who was hiding out with his tribe, the Awalak, in the remote, rugged southern province of Shabwa. Days after the teenager began his quest, however, his father was killed in a U.S. drone strike. Then, just two weeks later, the Yemeni government claimed another air strike killed a senior al-Qaeda militant. Abdulrahman, his teenage cousin and six others died in the attack as well. A U.S. official said the young man "was in the wrong place at the wrong time," and that the U.S. was trying to kill a legitimate terrorist — al-Qaeda leader Ibrahim al-Banna, who also died — in the strike that apparently killed the American teenager. (See a video on the volatile uprisings in Yemen.)

Abdulrahman's distraught grandfather is not buying the explanation. Nasser al-Awlaki, who received a university degree in the U.S., had for years sought an injunction in American courts to prevent the Obama Administration from targeting and killing his son, Anwar. He told TIME, "I really feel disappointed that this crime is going to be forgotten. I think the American people ought to know what really happened and how the power of their government is being abused by this Administration. Americans should start asking why a boy was targeted for killing." He continued, "In addition to my grandson's killing, the missile killed my brother's grandson, who was a 17-year-old kid, who was not an American citizen but is a human being, killed in cold blood. I cannot comprehend how my teenage grandson was killed by a Hellfire missile, how nothing was left of him except small pieces of flesh. Why? Is America safer now that a boy was killed?" As for Abdulrahman's father, Nasser says that the U.S. "killed my son Anwar without a trial for any crime he committed ... They killed him just for his freedom of speech." He levels the charges directly at the U.S. President. "I urge the American people to bring the killers to justice. I urge them to expose the hypocrisy of the 2009 Nobel Prize laureate. To some, he may be that. To me and my family, he is nothing more than a child killer."...MORE...LINK

The following article by Richard K. Moore is an incisive take on where we are headed, or rather being steered, by the neo-fascist, financial elites "underwriting" the New World Order (on the credit and backs of the average citizens and taxpayers, the very People who comprise the sovereign, no less).

Note what the author lists as the characteristics and goals of this evil, low-cunning, financial "aristocracy" engineering this satanic nightmare: an end to nationalism and patriotism, an end to national sovereignty, an end to free enterprise, an end to democracy and the popular will, an end to individual identity; all of this in concert with the implementation of a Globalism, the implementation of totalitarian police states to crackdown on protesters and dissidents, the imposition of a neo Ancien Regime...

Now glance above to Libertarian Today's slogan: "FOR LIBERTARIAN NATIONALISM: ANTI-CORPORATIST, ANTI-COMMUNIST, ANTI-GLOBALIST...PRO-SOVEREIGNTY, PRO-POPULIST, PRO-FREE ENTERPRISE"...all of which is the diametric opposite of the New World Order goals.

Now glance to the top right of this screen, and note my opposition to Judeofascism...the diametric opposite of the Judeophile/Jewish supremacist agenda that the Zionist-Globalist class is attempting to impose upon humanity.

The key to defeating the New World Order is no great secret; the answer, in fact, is quite simple: pursue the political opposite of the "values" these satanists and racist, neo-feudal overlords and Zionist banksters are attempting to impose upon mankind.

That, and dust off the guillotines, because just like communism, this evil, totalitarian enterprise is destined to fall, and fall hard. And when it does...

...The business of the capitalist is the management of capital, and this management is generally handled through the mediation of banks and brokerage houses. It should not be surprising that investment bankers came to occupy the top of the hierarchy of capitalist wealth and power. And in fact, there are a handful of banking families, including the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, who have come to dominate economic and political affairs in the Western world.

Unlike aristocrats, capitalists are not tied to a place, or to the maintenance of a place. Capital is disloyal and mobile – it flows to where the most growth can be found, as it flowed from Holland to Britain, then from Britain to the USA, and most recently from everywhere to China. Just as a copper mine might be exploited and then abandoned, so under capitalism a whole nation can be exploited and then abandoned, as we see in the rusting industrial areas of America and Britain.

This detachment from place leads to a different kind of geopolitics under capitalism, as compared to aristocracy. A king goes to war when he sees an advantage to his nation in doing so. Historians can ‘explain’ the wars of pre-capitalist days, in terms of the aggrandisement of monarchs and nations.

A capitalist stirs up a war in order to make profits, and in fact our elite banking families have financed both sides of most military conflicts since at least World War 1. Hence historians have a hard time ‘explaining’ World War 1 in terms of national motivations and objectives.

In pre-capitalist days warfare was like chess, each side trying to win. Under capitalism warfare is more like a casino, where the players battle it out as long as they can get credit for more chips, and the real winner always turns out to be the house – the bankers who finance the war and decide who will be the last man standing. Not only are wars the most profitable of all capitalist ventures, but by choosing the winners, and managing the reconstruction, the elite banking families are able, over time, to tune the geopolitical configuration to suit their own interests.

Nations and populations are but pawns in their games. Millions die in wars, infrastructures are destroyed, and while the world mourns, the bankers are counting their winnings and making plans for their postwar reconstruction investments.

From their position of power, as the financiers of governments, the banking elite have over time perfected their methods of control. Staying always behind the scenes, they pull the strings controlling the media, the political parties, the intelligence agencies, the stock markets, and the offices of government. And perhaps their greatest lever of power is their control over currencies. By means of their central-bank scam, they engineer boom and bust cycles, and they print money from nothing and then loan it at interest to governments. The power of the elite banking gang (the ‘banksters’) is both absolute and subtle...

Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something. They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it. – President Woodrow Wilson

The End of Growth – Banksters vs. CapitalismIt was always inevitable, on a finite planet, that there would be a limit to economic growth. Industrialisation has enabled us to rush headlong toward that limit over the past two centuries. Production has become ever more efficient, markets have become ever more global, and finally the paradigm of perpetual growth has reached the point of diminishing returns.

Indeed, that point was actually reached by about 1970. Since then capital has not so much sought growth through increased production, but rather by extracting greater returns from relatively flat production levels. Hence globalisation, which moved production to low-waged areas, providing greater profit margins. Hence privatisation, which transfers revenue streams to investors that formerly went to national treasuries. Hence derivative and currency markets, which create the electronic illusion of economic growth, without actually producing anything in the real world.

For almost forty years, the capitalist system was kept going by these various mechanisms, none of which were productive in any real sense. And then in September 2008 this house of cards collapsed, all of a sudden, bringing the global financial system to its knees.

If one studies the collapse of civilisations, one learns that failure-to-adapt is fatal. Is our civilisation falling into that trap? We had two centuries of real growth, where the growth-dynamic of capitalism was in harmony with the reality of industrial growth. Then we had four decades of artificial growth – capitalism being sustained by a house of cards. And now, after the house of cards has collapsed, every effort is apparently being made to bring about ‘a recovery’ – of growth! It is very easy to get the impression that our civilisation is in the process of collapse, based on the failure-to-adapt principle.

Such an impression would be partly right and partly wrong. In order to understand the real situation we need to make a clear distinction between the capitalist elite and capitalism itself. Capitalism is an economic system driven by growth; the capitalist elite are the folks who have managed to gain control of the Western world while capitalism has operated over the past two centuries. The capitalist system is past its sell-by date, the bankster elite are well aware of that fact – and they are adapting.

Capitalism is a vehicle that helped bring the banksters to absolute power, but they have no more loyalty to that system than they have to place, or to anything or anyone. As mentioned earlier, they think on a global scale, with nations and populations as pawns. They define what money is and they issue it, just like the banker in a game of Monopoly. They can also make up a new game with a new kind of money. They have long outgrown any need to rely on any particular economic system in order to maintain their power. Capitalism was handy in an era of rapid growth. For an era of non-growth, a different game is being prepared.

Thus, capitalism was not allowed to die a natural death. Instead it was brought down by a controlled demolition. First it was put on a life-support system, as mentioned above, with globalisation, privatisation, currency markets, etc. Then it was injected with a euthanasia death-drug, in the form of real-estate bubbles and toxic derivatives. Finally, the Bank of International Settlements in Basel – the central bank of central banks – pulled the plug on the life-support system: they declared the ‘mark-to-market rule’, which made all the risk-holding banks instantly insolvent, although it took a while for this to become apparent. Every step in this process was carefully planned and managed by the central-banking clique.

The End of Sovereignty – Restoring the Ancien RégimeJust as the financial collapse was carefully managed, so was the post-collapse scenario, with its suicidal bailout programs. National budgets were already stretched; they certainly did not have reserves available to salvage the insolvent banks. Thus the bailout commitments amounted to nothing more than the taking on of astronomical new debts by governments. In order to service the bailout commitments, the money would need to be borrowed from the same financial system that was being bailed out!

It’s not that the banks were too big to fail, rather the banksters were too powerful to fail: they made politicians an offer they couldn’t refuse. In the USA, Congress was told that without bailouts there would be martial law the next morning. In Ireland, the Ministers were told there would be financial chaos and rioting in the streets. In fact, as Iceland demonstrated, the sensible way to deal with the insolvent banks was with an orderly process of receivership.

The effect of the coerced bailouts was to transfer insolvency from the banks to the national treasuries. Banking debts were transformed into sovereign debts and budget deficits. Now, quite predictably, it is the nations that are seeking bailouts, and those bailouts come with conditions attached. Instead of the banks going into receivership, the nations are going into receivership.

In his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins explains how the third world has been coerced over the past several decades – through pressure and trickery of various kinds – into perpetual debt bondage. By design, the debts can never be repaid. Instead, the debts must be periodically refinanced, and each round of refinancing buries the nation deeper in debt – and compels the nation to submit to even more drastic IMF diktats. With the orchestrated financial collapse, and the ‘too big to fail’ scam, the banksters have now crossed the Rubicon: the hit-man agenda is now operating here in the first world.

In the EU, the first round of nations to go down will be the so-called PIGS – Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain. The fiction, that the PIGS can deal with the bailouts, is based on the assumption that the era of limitless growth will resume. As the banksters themselves know full well, that just isn’t going to happen. Eventually the PIGS will be forced to default, and then the rest of the EU will go down as well, all part of a controlled-demolition project.

When a nation succumbs to debt bondage, it ceases to be a sovereign nation, governed by some kind of internal political process. Instead it comes under the control of IMF diktats. As we have seen in the third world, and is happening now in Europe, these diktats are all about austerity and privatisation. Government functions are eliminated or privatised, and national assets are sold off. Little by little – again a controlled demolition – the nation state is dismantled. In the end, the primary functions left to government are police suppression of its own population, and the collection of taxes to be handed over to the banksters...MORE...LINK

...The problem, and I suppose this was inevitable, is that Occupy Wall Street is being portrayed as some kind of anti-Tea Party. Left vs. right, blue vs. red, rock vs. country, et cetera—it's the only way we know how to draw battle lines anymore. But how are the two movements meaningfully different? I sure as hell can't figure it out. There are plenty of minor differences, mostly concerning priorities and demographics, but the similarities are much more substantial. Both are popular uprisings against powerful-but-nebulous entities believed to be responsible for America's economic struggles. Both are defined not by easily-identified leaders, but by the sum total of countless unique viewpoints, and thus are not capable of articulating their goals with any cohesiveness or specificity (nor should they be expected to). And both movements, to borrow the classification scheme created by Bill O'Reilly, are teeming with both pinheads and patriots.

And yet, over the last week or so each side has generated mountains of commentary saying, essentially, this: You know the one-sidedly [negative/positive] portrayal of the Tea Party we've been pushing for two and a half years now? Well Occupy Wall Street is totally the opposite!

Paul Krugman describes OWS as "a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." Meanwhile, Ann Coulter says the OWS protesters are angry at the wrong people (and also have poor hygiene, because why not?).

Keith Olbermann says OWS is legitimately a grassroots movement that, at least at first, was ignored by the media. Rush Limbaugh says the Tea Party is the "organic" one, while OWS was "manufactured" by the media.

ThinkProgess claims the OWS protests "better embody the values of the original Boston Tea Party." BigGovernment insists the protesters are "more aligned with Marxism; with Democratic Socialism; with Soviet Era Collectivism; with the very dangerous and elitist Progressive Movement" than with anything even remotely "American".

So it goes. It's hard to be honest and fair. It's easy to cobble together some empty rhetoric and lob it in the direction of those most inclined to assume the best about their friends and the worst about their enemies.[2]...

...Occupy Wall Street, at its core, is a reaction to the increasing power and influence of large corporations. The Tea Party, at its core, is a reaction to the government's constant interference with private enterprise. But wait a minute—aren't those things connected?

Bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks, special rights and privileges, regulations designed to restrict competition—to name a few of the many ways the government protects and stimulates corporate interests, and those things are every bit as anti-free market as, not to mention directly related to, the high taxes and excessive bureaucracy that gets Tea Partiers riled up.[3] In other words, aren't these two groups—Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party—raging against different halves of the same machine? Do I have to draw a Venn diagram here?

What were these protesters doing to elicit violence from the police? Nothing, except exercising their constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights.

There is clearly a neo-fascist, Zionist-Globalist war on the U.S. Constitution and American freedoms going on in this country at the behest of the wealthy, corrupt Parasite Class and its bought-off, Left-Right lackeys, and the gloves are coming off.

When Americans not only get fleeced by these neo-fascists, but then get assaulted by authorities for exercising their right to publicly petition and speak out against the theft, it's clear that these Zionist gangsters are totally out of control.

I'm sure none of this is going to sit well with the U.S. military, which no doubt is quickly realizing that it's been hoodwinked itself into fighting wars for Zionist supremacism and for an insular, Ancien Regime-style elite that is increasingly out-of-touch and guilty of treason.

Americans unquestionably must now begin the long, arduous process of eradicating this haughty, entitled menace and its corrupt political lackeys, but must NOT make the same mistake as the French revolutionaries and set up a permanent central authority to do so.

The guillotine should be allowed to do the job of dispensing justice to these neo-fascists, and then wheeled into retirement so the Constitution can be re-drafted to correct the errors that allowed for the government's infiltration by these treasonous interlopers, and restored to its rightful place as the law of the land.

There is Iraq, where President Obama is crowing about bringing the troops home while downplaying the fact that this was an exit process President Bush started and the even more glaring fact that the Iraqis are essentially kicking us out. The Iraq war cost $4 trillion, took more than 4,000 American lives and lasted nearly nine years. And we’re leaving behind a resentful and divided Iraqi people, an America-weary Iraqi government and an empowered Iran.

Then there is the Afghanistan war, the longest war in U.S. history. Trillions of dollars have been spent, almost 2,000 American soldiers have been killed and nearly 15,000 American soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan over the past decade. And yet our goal there remains unclear. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who was practically installed by the U.S., said last week that if America went to war with Pakistan, his country would side with Pakistan.

Strangely enough, the only one of these wars that receives relatively high marks from the American public is Libya, where a majority of conservatives don’t think President Obama should have intervened in the first place. Conservatives believe that despite Gadhafi’s demise, intervening in Libya was still not worth the risk or cost, insisting that the decision to intervene abroad should require a high threshold which this instance did not meet. These conservatives are correct. Still, the Libyan intervention remains popular with a plurality of Americans precisely because Gadhafi was killed at minimal cost.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, most conservatives find themselves on the complete opposite side of the same cost/benefit argument they make concerning Libya, and also against the overwhelming sentiment of the American people. In most polls, upwards of 60% and even 70% of Americans call the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mistakes, say they were not worth the cost and believe it is time to bring our troops home. Many American soldiers feel the same way. As CBS News reported this month: “One in three U.S. veterans of the post-Sept. 11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems.” Perhaps even more interesting, a Pew Research Poll of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans published this month revealed: “About half (51 percent) of post-9/11 veterans say that the use of military force to fight terrorism creates hatred that breeds more terrorism.”

Many conservatives say, “I like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.” Perhaps thinking they’re going for the jugular, Paul’s critics like to first cite his contention that our foreign interventions breed more Islamic terrorism than they quell, often saying the congressman somehow “blames America” for our troubles. Yet, according to the Pew poll, a majority of our soldiers — who you might think know a thing or two about what causes Islamic terrorism — actually agree with Paul on this point. More significantly, Paul’s overall foreign policy of avoiding going to war where there is no clear national interest is where the congressman is most in line with public sentiment. The only exception is Libya, where ironically most Republicans side with Paul and against public opinion...MORE...LINK

In what appears to be the first serious injury nationwide in the Occupy Wall Street movement, a 24-year-old Iraq War veteran lay in an Oakland hospital Wednesday night with a critical skull fracture, adding a new level of intensity in a mass demonstration that has swept the country and led to clashes with police.

Scott Thomas Olsen, 24, of Daly City, was struck in the head above his right eye with a tear-gas canister during a massive confrontation Tuesday night in which protesters threw rocks and bottles at police officers who deployed tear gas and fired bean bags to disperse the crowd of about 1,000.

"It's absolutely unconscionable that our citizens are going overseas to protect other citizens just to come back and have our own police hurt them," said Joshua Shepherd, a six-year Navy veteran and friend of Olsen...

Wednesday afternoon, many gathered to hold a vigil for the injured Marine corporal, who hails from Onalaska, Wisc.

"He survived two tours in Iraq," said Adele Carpenter, a friend of Olsen's and a member of the Civilian Soldier Alliance. "This struggle has high stakes, I really respect the fact that Scott was standing up for what he believes in. He's really passionate about social justice causes."

Acting police Chief Howard Jordan said the incident is under investigation by Internal Affairs, Office of Investigator General, Alameda County District Attorney's Office and the federal monitor that oversees Oakland police as a part of a settlement police corruption lawsuit. Oakland police will also review its training, policies and procedures...

Meanwhile, Mayor Jean Quan has come under fire for the situation. Her Facebook page has drawn comments from at least 8,900 people, many posting negative remarks on her Tuesday morning statement commending police, firefighters and public works crews who "worked over the past week to peacefully close the encampment." The comments call for her ouster, say she is unfit for office, and say she should be ashamed of how police acted.

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” - Thomas Jefferson

As a history teacher, I spend a great deal of time with the Founding Fathers, and, as an American citizen, I was raised to see them, their ideas, and the heritage handed down from them as significant and valuable. In fact, I would go so far as to say that most Americans think they value the heritage of their country.

But, in reality, the average American merely gives lip service to the ideas of liberty and freedom espoused in our founding documents and by our Founding Fathers. In other words, Americans may “value” these things, but only as one values a work of art at the Louvre. You appreciate it from a distance and know it will never be in your house.

This is evidenced not by how many Americans own a copy of the Constitution or by how many could name all the presidents, but by how freely Americans willingly surrender what belongs to them.

Wednesday was the 10th anniversary of the PATRIOT Act. On Oct. 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed the 315-page legislation into law even though the House was only given 15 minutes to consider its contents. Then Attorney General John Ashcroft told Congress it was much too urgent to delay. This was done in the name of keeping Americans “safe” and protecting America, the “brightest beacon of freedom and opportunity in the world.”

“Freedom and opportunity” were, according to Bush, what motivated the 9/11 attacks against us, though Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda explicitly claimed other motives. Bin Laden said, “We swore that America wouldn’t live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel’s interest above its own people’s interest. America won’t get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel.”

If it seems strange that American leaders ignored those stated motives in favor of the “freedom and opportunity” story, how much worse is it that they responded with the PATRIOT Act? Are freedom and opportunity preserved by allowing the government to track its own citizens? What about wiretaps? Search and seizure without a warrant or even stated probable cause? Does that sound like freedom? How about the government’s ability to detain someone indefinitely without charge? Or its ability to place American citizens on a “kill list” without first granting them due process? What kind of “opportunity” do Americans have when they are groped at every airport, train station, bus station, and (coming soon) highway by TSA agents?

The real problem is that too many Americans do not think in these terms. They respond to such questions with a pitiful “times have changed” argument as if we are the only society in history to be challenged with the issues of liberty and government tyranny. Times have changed, and it is most evident in the willingness of Americans to gladly have their own rights trampled in the name of safety...MORE...LINK

The proposed article, under the working title "Zionism, Trojan horse for neo-fascism," will explore the ways in which Israel and the "plight of the Jewish people" is being manipulated by both elite Jewish Zionists and elite non-Jews as a pretext to a) scam the public into spending billions on wars and bankster bailouts; b) hide behind the smokescreen of "anti-Semitism" accusations to fend off criticism; c) destroy Islamic civilization under the auspices of "progressiveism"; and d) implement neo-fascism.

The idea is to raise $500 in donations via PayPal in increments of at least $25 dollars each (more would be great get the ball rolling faster), so I can afford to take the time away from my regular work to get the analysis researched and published.

In these difficult economic times, it's hard to justify taking the blocks of time away from my shrinking, regular-income work necessary to complete these longer articles without getting some sort of compensation in return. Isn't this one small example of exactly how the free enterprise system (which currently seems to be in the process of being overthrown on a macro level, but that's another article) should be able to at least sustain itself on a micro level? (Trying to keep the faith, here.)

As I'm sure all of you who are regulars here are well aware by now, there's no paying market for this kind of work in mainstream media, which is easily as corrupt as so many of our other institutions, if not more so.

That leaves it up to you.

If the $500 is successfully raised within a certain time horizon, I will let readers know that the project is under way. If the $500 is not raised, the project will be abandoned, and any donations earmarked for the project returned.

I will update readers regularly on the fundraising progress and with reminders of what I'm trying to do. My hope is that projects like this (donations in exchange for original output) can be a regular source of income so I can afford to spend less time money-grubbing at less important enterprises and more time working on original research and writing in these crucial times.

One of the President Obama's first promises after becoming President of the United States was a commitment to usher in a new era of unprecedented government transparency . Instead the Obama administration has exhibited what may be an unprecedented obsession with government secrecy including blocking numerous law suits by invoking the doctrine of "State Secrets." The administration has even come up with an interpretation of the Patriot Act which many in Congress who have seen it claim is overly broad and bestows more power on the Executive Branch than was intended by Congress when they passed it.

Unfortunately those in Congress who have seen this document are not permitted to divulge its content, and we, the public, cannot see it because the administration has chosen to classify it as a "State Secret." In other words, you might be doing something that the Obama Administration believes violates the Patriot Act, but you won't know it until they indict you for breaking a law you did not know existed (I might be breaking it just by penning and publishing this article).

Now the Obama/Holder Justice Department is attempting to re-write the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), empowering or even compelling government agencies to deny the very existence of records they know to exist if they believe they are legitimately exempted from disclosure. Of course they are most likely the sole arbiter of whether they are indeed exempt from disclosure. In effect the Obama/Holder Justice Department wants to be free to legally lie about the existence of records in response to FOIA requests. Apparently they want to avoid the embarrassment and inconvenience of being officially rebuked by the courts for doing exactly that (lying to a Federal judge), as occurred earlier this year when, in a strongly worded opinion, U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney wrote that the "Government cannot, under any circumstance, affirmatively mislead the Court." The solution is simple: re-write the law so the government, in many circumstances, can affirmatively mislead the court...MORE...LINK

The Iraq war is over. Buried by the news from Libya, Barack Obama announced late on Friday that all US troops will leave Iraq by 31 December.

The president put a brave face on it, claiming he was fulfilling an election promise to end the war, though he had actually been supporting the Pentagon's effort to make a deal with Iraq's prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to keep US bases and several thousand troops there indefinitely.

The talks broke down because Moqtada al-Sadr's members of parliament and other Iraqi nationalists insisted that US troops be subject to Iraqi law. In every country where they are based the US insists on legal immunity and refuses to let troops be tried by foreigners. In Iraq the issue is especially sensitive after numerous US murders of civilians and the Abu Ghraib scandal in which Iraqi prisoners were sexually humiliated. In almost every case where US courts tried US troops, soldiers were acquitted or received relatively brief prison sentences.

The final troop withdrawal marks a complete defeat for Bush's Iraq project. The neocons' grand plan to use the 2003 invasion to turn the country into a secure pro-western democracy and a garrison for US bases that could put pressure on Syria and Iran lies in tatters...

But the neocons' biggest defeat is that, thanks to Bush's toppling of Saddam Hussein, Iran's greatest enemy, Tehran's influence in Iraq is much stronger today than is America's. Iran does not control Iraq but Tehran no longer has anything to fear from its western neighbour now that a Shia-dominated government sits in Baghdad, made up of parties whose leaders spent long years of exile in Iran under Saddam or, like Sadr, have lived there more recently...MORE...LINK

The U.S. economy is dying and most American voters have no idea why it is happening. Unfortunately, the mainstream media and most of our politicians are not telling the truth about the collapse of the economy. This generation was handed the keys to the greatest economic machine that the world has ever seen, and we have completely wrecked it. Decades of incredibly foolish decisions have left us drowning in an ocean of corruption, greed and bad debt. Thousands of businesses and millions of jobs have left the country and poverty is exploding from coast to coast. We are literally becoming a joke to the rest of the world. It is absolutely imperative that we educate America about what is happening. Until the American people truly understand the problems that we are facing, they will not be willing to implement the solutions that are necessary.

The following are the top 100 statistics about the collapse of the economy that every American voter should know...MORE...LINK

Friday, October 21, 2011

Global Research is a left-leaning organization that has nonetheless put its finger on a major economic problem in the U.S. with the following article. Namely, that the patriotic, old titans of manufacturing and American economic progress have been replaced by a new elite that sees itself as a “chosen” leadership and financial aristocracy that should never be questioned, even as it robs Americans blind.

Internationalist in temperament, outlook and ambition, the attitude of this new elite can be thought of shorthand as what Henry Ford once described as the mentality of “the international Jew,” but which also includes many “progressive” and right-wing non-Jews who have embraced the Globalist agenda out of greed, careerism, opportunism and just plan crass, black-heartedness.

These types feel that patriotism is for rubes, nationalism is for Nazis, and that they don’t need to dirty their hands or strain their backs with the tough job of implementing the success of U.S. jobs-producing manufacturing and industry. No, they are above all of that, and have a more important, messianic mission of accumulating billions for their own bank accounts through capital speculation and on the backs of the peasants while simultaneously lecturing the ever larger underclass about political correctness, green economies, tolerance for the predatory financial class, and the crucial importance of bombing Islamic women and children.

The insatiable greed and malevolence of this self-important, predatory Zionist-Globalist class is finally coming to a head, with the Tea Party movement being the right-wing manifestation of resistance and the Occupy movement being the left-wing manifestation.

At present, the corrupt GOP and Democratic Party leadership are attempting to pit these two dissident groups against one another and corral them back into the respective, mainstream Left-Right Party tents, but in the long run, such an enterprise is futile, as more and more Americans get wise to the swindle, and as the financial crimes against humanity perpetrated by this State-Capitalist aristocracy hit more and more Americans where it hurts economically.

The theft, plunder and economic decimation carried out by these self-serving parasites is finally catching up with them, and all the lawyer-like spin and fast talk in the world won’t be able to stay the execution of the quickly tightening noose that those who have been grievously wronged are quickly lassoing around their greedy necks. -- C.M.-------------------------From:Occupy Wall Street: Populist Financiers Supporting Protesters Is Part of the Problem, Not the Solution(Global Research) -- by Finian Cunningham --

...Of the public figures that have come out recently to support the Occupy Wall Street movement perhaps the most bizarre are some of the Wall Street financiers themselves. Some of the big names, apparently rallying to the cause, include George Soros, Warren Buffett, Ben Bernanke and Al Gore.

The phrase “poachers becoming gamekeepers” comes to mind. How can financiers and speculators who are the embodiment of everything that is awry with the American economy be part of the solution? This is an example of where the movement needs to make tough political choices and to demonstrate that it understands the structural nature of the challenge that lies ahead. In not doing so, what we will witness is a classic maneouvre to co-opt a grassroots movement that could otherwise pose a serious challenge to the power structure that has so deformed the American economy and society.

The financiers supporting the OWS campaign may articulate popular disdain towards “greedy banksters” – but if the protest movement really does pose a serious challenge to the power structure, then it needs to go beyond personalizing attacks against criminal individuals and understand that the problem at hand is systemic.

What is needed is avoidance of analyzing the challenge in terms of “good financiers” and “bad banksters”. It is the entire system of finance capitalism that needs to be challenged. Accepting the support of seemingly benign financiers may galvanise certain feelgood populism, but it only obscures the systemic nature of the problem and therefore the solution.

In understanding the systemic challenge we need to see it in historic context. The US economy and that of Europe has exhausted itself from the vast polarization of wealth over several decades. The economy has deteriorated to a deformed state, in which a tiny layer of society has and is accumulating vast wealth while the preponderant majority struggle to make a basic living. This elite financial aristocracy is of a piece with the feudal aristocracy of bygone centuries in Europe who derived their wealth by parasiting off the peasantry. The aristocracy in both instances is not involved in the production of goods or manufactures; they exist by lording it over the masses, extracting from the latter tributes in a web of rentier relationships.

It is something of an historical achievement that the US, which began its modern development free of the feudal ruling class that so exploited the European masses, should now be so dominated by an aristocracy that harks back to the rapacious nobles of Europe. The Republic of America was supposed to herald the ascent of democratic rights, to mark a new beginning for universal common rights, whereby rule by divine right was cast aside. Albeit that the limits of American democracy were defined by what its bourgeois Founding Fathers would tolerate, the US nevertheless represented a radical break from the European order.

In Europe, fearing that the revolutionary impulse would go too far, the emergent European bourgeoisie made its peace with the feudal aristocracy to keep the masses in check. The compromise between “new” and “old” money in Europe can be seen today in the continued constitutional role of royal families and lords, for example in Spain, Holland, Norway and most prominently in Britain. Meanwhile, in the US, not having a feudal past, the new social contract was between the capitalist manufacturers and nascent industrialists and the wider working population. In that way, the US, it could be argued, represented a more progressive democracy, offering greater rights and opportunities to the masses.

But over the past three decades, the progressive nature of American capitalist democracy has been completely eviscerated. The implicit social contract, whereby the workers could expect a fairer share of the wealth that they ultimately produce, has been ripped asunder. The paid and bought lawmakers of the two main political parties have ensured that policies relentlessly siphon off wealth to the ruling class. With rising poverty and likewise plummeting demand, even the traditional capitalists who owned the means of production can no longer find viable markets. The manufacturing bourgeoisie – the architects of the American republic – have now been superseded by a financial aristocracy, who no longer contribute accumulated capital in any productive way. They are an idle class of speculators, who make money off money. The domination of means of exchange over means of production is now the hallmark of late capitalism. This is the systemic nature of the problem and that can’t be altered or mitigated by even the most benign and well-intentioned individual financiers...MORE...LINK

Well, the beleaguered Western taxpayers, whose own infrastructures, economies, societies and families are crumbling, just attained yet another Islamic dependent.

But that's alright. Wall Street is happy because oil companies will get rich along with the elites of the neo-fascist, State-corporatocracy that is able to pass off all of the negative costs of conquering and occupying Libya onto the average taxpayers (as epitomized by the Fox News and MSNBC useful idiots now pumping their fists) and keep the plumbs for themselves.

It must be nice for these smug, executive suite and marble hall elites to see millions of people cheering another hallmark moment in the agenda of their own enslavement. I'm sure they take great satisfaction in seeing the rubes celebrate their own fleecing and bankrupting. What an ego-boost for the elite's sociopathic psyches.

Meanwhile, the rubes are engaged in their own "victory" high...that is, until the bills start coming due and the realize they've been swindled, yet again.

But isn't that why rubes exist, as fodder for sociopaths? -- Chris Moore

The proposed article, under the working title "Zionism, Trojan horse for neo-fascism," will explore the ways in which Israel and the "plight of the Jewish people" is being manipulated by both elite Jewish Zionists and elite non-Jews as a pretext to a) scam the public into spending billions on wars and bankster bailouts; b) hide behind the smokescreen of "anti-Semitism" accusations to fend off criticism; c) destroy Islamic civilization under the auspices of "progressiveism"; and d) implement neo-fascism.

The idea is to raise $500 in donations via PayPal in increments of at least $25 dollars each (more would be great get the ball rolling faster), so I can afford to take the time away from my regular work to get the analysis researched and published.

In these difficult economic times, it's hard to justify taking the blocks of time away from my shrinking, regular-income work necessary to complete these longer articles without getting some sort of compensation in return. Isn't this one small example of exactly how the free enterprise system (which currently seems to be in the process of being overthrown on a macro level, but that's another article) should be able to at least sustain itself on a micro level? (Trying to keep the faith, here.)

As I'm sure all of you who are regulars here are well aware by now, there's no paying market for this kind of work in mainstream media, which is easily as corrupt as so many of our other institutions, if not more so.

That leaves it up to you.

If the $500 is successfully raised within a certain time horizon, I will let readers know that the project is under way. If the $500 is not raised, the project will be abandoned, and any donations earmarked for the project returned.

I will update readers regularly on the fundraising progress and with reminders of what I'm trying to do. My hope is that projects like this (donations in exchange for original output) can be a regular source of income so I can afford to spend less time money-grubbing at less important enterprises and more time working on original research and writing in these crucial times.

In the days before a CIA drone strike killed al-Qaeda operative Anwar al-Awlaki last month, his 16-year-old son ran away from the family home in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa to try to find him, relatives say. When he, too, was killed in a U.S. airstrike Friday, the Awlaki family decided to speak out for the first time since the attacks.

“To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense,” said Nasser al-Awlaki, a former Yemeni agriculture minister who was Anwar al-Awlaki’s father and the boy’s grandfather, speaking in a phone interview from Sanaa on Monday. “They want to justify his killing, that’s all.”

The teenager, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who was born in Denver in 1995, and his 17-year-old Yemeni cousin were killed in a U.S. military strike that left nine people dead in southeastern Yemen.

The young Awlaki was the third American killed in Yemen in as many weeks. Samir Khan, an al-Qaeda propagandist from North Carolina, died alongside Anwar al-Awlaki...MORE...LINK

Bank of America Corp. (BAC) is in trouble and any other business which would just go under without any help; the corrupt banksters, with the help of the private Federal Reserve, are attempting to pass off their failures to the American people. Again.

Only three years ago the American people had massive debts piled on our heads by being forced to bail out the biggest lenders in the United States.

During this bailout, Bank of America received a whopping $45 billion and as of midyear had deposits numbering some $1.04 trillion.

Now Bank of America is attempting to protect itself from its derivative exposure through its Merrill Lynch unit by moving derivatives to a subsidiary replete with insured deposits.

This means that if the bank were to fail, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, would be on the hook for paying for the moved derivatives.

If the derivatives remained in Merrill Lynch, which is not insured by the FDIC and thus the taxpayer, and the bank were to collapse, the money would be lost.

Unsurprisingly, the private Federal Reserve has absolutely no problem with the move, while the FDIC is objecting according to anonymous sources cited by Bloomberg.

Even more unsurprisingly, Bank of America thinks that no regulatory approval is needed, regardless of the fact that this is an openly fraudulent way of insuring items which should never be insured.

This is surreptitiously timed given Moody’s downgraded Bank of America’s long term credit ratings on September 21st, slashing both the holding company and the retail bank’s ratings by two notches each.

Section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act is supposed to act like a firewall, preventing the affiliates of lenders from gaining from the lenders’ federal subsidy and also to protect the bank from risks originating from the affiliate, according to Saule Omarova, a University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law professor.

This section was created because, “Congress doesn’t want a bank’s FDIC insurance and access to the Fed discount window to somehow benefit an affiliate,” Omarova said to Bloomberg.

However, in September of 2010, Bank of America was officially given a letter of exemption from Section 23A, effectively ending what the Federal Reserve’s general counsel, Scott Alvarez, told Congress in 2008 “is among the most important tools that U.S. bank regulators have to protect the safety and soundness of U.S. banks”.

So, with the help of the Fed, Bank of America is already exempt from one of the most important impediments to banks going out of control.

And now the Fed is once again backing the Bank of America’s attempts to undermine what little regulation we have in the banking system by putting the American people on the hook for their derivative exposure...MORE...LINK

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Jewish, neoliberal New York Times columnist David Brooks set off a storm of accusations of "anti-Semitism" against the Occupy Wall Street movement following his October 10 column titled "The Milquetoast Radicals," in which he condemned the movement as "small, contentious and symbolic," and sparked by anti-Jewish sentiments.

"This uprising was sparked by the magazine Adbusters, previously best known for the 2004 essay, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They Are Jewish?” — an investigative report that identified some of the most influential Jews in America and their nefarious grip on policy.

"If there is a core theme to the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is that the virtuous 99 percent of society is being cheated by the richest and greediest 1 percent.

"This is a theme that allows the people in the 99 percent to think very highly of themselves. All their problems are caused by the nefarious elite."

Influential neoconservative talk radio personality Rush Limbaugh quickly picked up on Brooks' innuendo and took it a step further on his Oct 11 program, inferring that in addition to Occupy Wall Street, the Democratic Party was dabbling in anti-Semitism, as well.

"...the 99% versus the 1% is another angle that the group is talking about here, and Wall Street and bankers, those two terms have been anti-Semitic code for Jews in this country for a long time. Occupier, Occupy Wall Street Now. I’ve often said, I said last week he who controls the definition of words, the meaning of words, controls the debate. He who controls the language controls the debate. There’s a lot of interesting stuff here. Occupy Wall Street Now, 99%, that leaves 1%, roughly the percentage of Jews in the population, too. And Wall Street and bankers have been anti-Semitic code for Jews in this country going back quite a while.

"Now, what’s happening here is that the Democrats...This is where Brooks may be on to something. It’s too early to tell. But the Democrats are embracing this group of people. They are embracing them big time. The Democrats — Jan Schakowsky in Illinois, members of Congress — cannot help themselves...But this Adbusters bunch has a history of anti-Semitism, proud anti-Semitism. (interruption) The article about Jewish “neocons” was just one of their pieces, Snerdley, that you mentioned here, along those lines...So here’s the point: If this group is being organized and paid for by a bunch of anti-Semites and the Democrat Party goes overboard in embracing this group of people, then this could be problem for the Democrat coalition, not to mention the fact that they could unleash a bunch of anti-Jewish racism down there if they’re not careful with this, ’cause there’s much more going on here than you just see at the surface."

Finally, Jewish neoconservative William Kristol, Editor of the The Weekly Standard, co-founder of The Project for a New American Century and chairman of the Emergency Committee for Israel issued a statement inferring that much of the Left in its entirety is anti-Semitic, writing that “It’s not surprising that elements of the modern left are anti-Semitic. It is surprising that respectable liberals have praised the protesters while ignoring the anti-Semitism. Liberals have pretended to see nothing hateful and hear nothing hateful, and therefore have said nothing to rebuke their allies. Will they now speak up?”

Kristol's group then issued an advertisement that inferred leaders of the Democratic Party were supportive of the alleged anti-Semitic current within Occupy Wall Street, and were refusing to "stand up to the mob."

The Emergency Committee for Israel, a Republican group that's focused primarily on criticizing President Obama's Israel policy, is opening a new front on Occupy Wall Street and the politicians -- notably Nancy Pelosi and Obama -- who have spoken sympathetically of the protests, with a new ad featuring anti-Semitic and anti-Israel signs and incidents into a claim that the events are motivated by anti-Semitism.

"Tell President Obama and Leader Pelosi to stand up to the mob," says the narrator of the spot, which the group says will air in a "substantial" buy in New York and Washington.

Of course, people who know its history and who are familiar with the current state of the Democratic Party know that far from being anti-Semitic, the Party is actually Jewish supremacist, and is probably more so today than it has ever been.

Zev Chafets of The Daily Beast recently encapsulated the Jewish supremacist bent of the Party at the domestic level:

Jews are less than 2 percent of the American population, but they are major players in the Democratic Party. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the chairwoman of the national committee. Steve Israel heads the House reelection committee. The party’s intelligentsia and pundit class have a higher bar mitzvah quotient than the average B’nai Brith bowling team. Three of the four Supreme Court justices appointed by Democratic presidents are Jews. So are a quarter of the members of the Democratic Senate Caucus and 45 congressmen (all but one, Eric Cantor, are Democrats).

The Washington Post has estimated that Jews provide 60 percent of the party’s major individual contributions. The actual stat, according to a Democratic insider privy to unreleased research, puts the figure closer to 80 percent. In 2004, when so-called 527 organizations provided the biggest contributions, four Democratic donors—George Soros, Peter Lewis, Steven Bing, and the Sandler family—coughed up $73 million, more than the next 20 contributors, Republican and Democratic, combined. Jews are not simply supporters of the Democratic Party. They are stakeholders.

Like all stakeholders, Jews—and their interests—are taken seriously. Some are professional: academia, the entertainment industry (which depends on a good U.S. image abroad for much of its income), the high-tech sector, the legal establishment, financial institutions, teachers' unions, and liberal NGOs are all disproportionately run and staffed by Jews...

And what about Democratic Party support for Jewish supremacism at the international level?

President Obama was recently celebrated by even right-wing Israeli press for “the most pro-Israel [U.N.] speech anyone has heard at that world forum for a very long time,” because he "not only adopted all of the Israeli arguments against recognising a Palestinian state by means of the UN, he adopted the basic Israeli narrative.”

Additionally, dozens of Democrats were among the 81 members of Congress from both parties (nearly 1/5 of the entire congressional body) who took a luxurious, all-expenses-paid, Israel lobby-funded junket to the Jewish state that amounted to an indoctrination tour. (Such pro-Zionist, indoctrination trips have been going on for decades.)

This Jewish supremacist Democratic Party leadership is what the neolibs and neocons, the Rush Limbaughs, the William Kristols and the David Brooks', are trying to claim is anti-Semitic? How on earth do these pro-Zionist, quasi-fascists think they can get away with such a big lie?

In addition to being intellectually dishonest propagandists and Israel-first, Zionist lackeys, the reason they're lying about supposed anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party is because they have have nothing to lose by doing so.

They know the Democrats won't point out that even though Jews are under 2% of the US population, 25% of the Democratic Party senators are Jewish, even as there's only one Black Democratic senator (despite Blacks providing something like 25% of Democratic Party votes);

in short, they know that the Democrats can't defend themselves from charges of anti-Semitism by pointing out that the Party of "equality" and "social justice" and "progressivism" is actually a party of racist, Jewish supremacism because that would unmask it for the fraud that it truly is.

So how will the Democrats react? To prove that they're not anti-Semitic, they'll become even more pro-Zionist than they already are...which is exactly the reaction that the Israel first neocons and neolibs are hoping for in their ongoing quest for World War III against Islamic civilization.

Wouldn't it be nice to someday have an America-first, explicitly anti-Zionist party to vote for that would refuse to play into the endless rituals of "anti-Semitism" accusations followed by ever more consequential pro-Zionist and Jewish supremacist policy carried out by the Democrats and Republicans decade after decade? Wouldn't it be nice to have a party that responded to "anti-Semitism" charges by declaring "Yes, we're anti-Zionist and anti-fascist, so what?"

Such a party MUST emerge, and emerge soon, if America is to be saved from the Zionist fascism being ratcheted tighter and tighter by the neolib-neocon two-party regime that currently occupies Washington.

Monday, October 17, 2011

The following analysis of the "Occupy" movement from the Socialist Equality Party is a nice summary of the economic problems that afflict much of the West, and increasingly the U.S., but fails to account for the Zionist ideology at the center of these problems.

The statement correctly notes of the Occupy movement that

The demand for “no politics,” which makes an appeal to the desire among workers and young people for a united struggle, itself conceals a political agenda—that is, opposition to any fight against the corporate-controlled two-party system. The Democratic Party and its main backers are descending on the Occupy movement. Their aim is to make sure that the protests do not lead to a broader struggle against the existing economic and political order.

The statement also notes that "the richest 400 Americans [Forbes 400] control $1.53 trillion, while a record number of people in the US have been driven into poverty."

How do socialists explain such a disproportionate representation among Jewry at top of the wealth pyramid amongst American? Do they believe Jews are racially superior to non-Jews, or is there some other explanation? If there is an elite, self-serving Jewish network funnelling money and power to itself, don't American need to know that, and factor it into their own analysis?

The socialists simply declare that capitalism is broken and unworkable, without declaring the insatiable, self-serving Zionist component that is illegally conspiring to monopolize it, and that (along with its ideologically Zionist collaborators) has rigged the system into its current abusive and immoral state in order to enrich and empower itself through wars, theft, and statist-corporatist corruption.

It's obvious why socialists don't want to name the Zionist elephant in the room: because to do so would suggest that capitalism (free enterprise) is salvageable if the right steps to break this corrupting Zionist network were to be taken. But the socialists don't really want reform, they want absolute meltdown in order to seize the levers of power and build an earthly utopia.

Sorry, that was tried in the Soviet Union, and it turned into an earthly hell.

Nonetheless, the following analysis is instructive as to the political maneuverings behind the scenes and the corruption of both the Democratic Party and neocon wing of the GOP...at least as far as it goes. -- C.M.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has struck a powerful chord among millions of people throughout the United States and internationally. At the center of this growing movement, which has spread to hundreds of cities, is deep-rooted opposition to the immense social inequality that is the dominant feature of American and world society.

The top one percent—indeed, the top 0.1 percent—are responsible for the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, which they have exploited to further enrich themselves. The richest 400 Americans control $1.53 trillion, while a record number of people in the US have been driven into poverty. The median income of Americans has fallen 10 percent since 2007, even as corporate profits and the bank accounts of the rich have soared. Young people face a future with no jobs, in which their education gets them nothing but tens of thousands of dollars of debt.

The protests in the US are part of an international movement against these intolerable conditions. The year began with the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the outbreak of mass protests in Wisconsin. It has continued with convulsive struggles in Greece, Spain, Israel, Great Britain and other countries. This movement will expand and grow in the coming months.

The critical question is: What is the way forward? Here, the question of politics is central.

There are those who claim that the protest movement can be sustained only by excluding any discussion of politics, parties and programs. The demand for “no politics,” which makes an appeal to the desire among workers and young people for a united struggle, itself conceals a political agenda—that is, opposition to any fight against the corporate-controlled two-party system.

The Democratic Party and its main backers are descending on the Occupy movement. Their aim is to make sure that the protests do not lead to a broader struggle against the existing economic and political order. The AFL-CIO and other groups associated with the Democratic Party want to transform the anti-Wall Street protests into a harmless campaign for the reelection of President Obama, who for three years has faithfully carried out the dictates of the banks.

Politics is about the struggle between opposing classes and social interests. The program of the ruling class—bank bailouts, social austerity, war and the destruction of democratic rights—must be opposed with a political program based on the independent interests of the working class...MORE...LINK

Sunday, October 16, 2011

As courts and bureaucrats continue to assert that citizens have no fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice, we find Monsanto lurking nearby. The Wisconsin judge who recently ruled that we have no right to own a cow or drink its milk resigned to join one of Monsanto’s law firms.

Former judge Patrick J. Fiedler now works for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.

…

In another link, Myriad Genetics, which holds the exclusive U.S. patent on human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, granted the license to GTL in 2002. These human genes are associated with breast and ovarian cancer.

In 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) sued the PTO, Myriad Genetics, and principals at the University of Utah Research Foundation, charging that patents on genes are unconstitutional and invalid. The suit also charges that such patents stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women’s options regarding their medical care.

In an absurd ruling this year, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the patent on these human genes, even though the DNA sequence occurs in nature. The court decided that simply because researchers had been able to extract it, the firm owns it. Of course, under this thinking, all of nature can be patented if human technology allows extraction.

“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted thousands of patents on human genes – in fact, about 20 percent of our genes are patented. A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents,” commented ACLU.

…

That any official would approve gene patents is bad enough – discovering nature is not inventing it. But in the Wisconsin case, Judge Fiedler ruled that humans:

•“Do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”•“Do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”•“Do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;”•“Do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;” and•Cannot enter into private contracts “outside the scope of the State’s police power.”Ruling against raw milk forces consumers to drink genetically modified, antibiotic-laden milk from cows fed an unnatural diet of pesticide-loaded feed. No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler. His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30...MORE...LINK

Friday, October 14, 2011

“The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” — V. I. Lenin

(By Chris Moore) -- Farnham O'Reilly of the White nationalist Occidental Observer webzine has an interesting article lamenting the seemingly inexplicable and incredibly sudden moral, social, cultural and racial collapse of the formerly-great White man of Western civilization, and a search for the root causes behind this utter train wreck.

...in the West, something has gone wrong. And, it has gone wrong very recently; perhaps the exact turning point in time can be placed shortly before the middle of the 20th century. Specifically with White people, the Laws of Nature have been turned upside down, and they have all but lost the normal, healthy animal instinct to resist danger. Black-on-White crime has become more prevalent, but we are yet to see any retaliation from Whites. In California there is a new law pushing the homosexual agenda that requires public schools to include the contributions of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender in social studies curriculum — emphasizing to children the nature of the contributor rather than the contribution. Out of the hundreds of thousands of parents affected, where is the father or mother who will rebel against their child being brainwashed — at their expense yet without their consent — into believing Nature is wrong?...

A little over two hundred years ago it only took a tax on tea to bring our folk to the flashpoint. After WWII, we stood with the passivity of the gelded while our schools and neighborhoods were integrated, our silver taken away, our society permeated with drugs, our modesty shorn, our young men sent off to die in no-win wars, our cultural values trashed, marriage and family attacked, our gene pool gutted, our ‘emancipated’ women given license to kill their babies, our borders opened, our manufacturing exported, perversion shoved down our throats, and our economy ruined. What was once the most blessed nation on earth, in a very short time, became a world leader in the rate of incarceration, car thefts, murders, number of police officers, number of obese people, legal and illegal drug use, divorce rate, rate of women taking anti-depressants, leading manufacturer of pornography (89% of world porn is made in America), foremost champion of Jewish political, cultural and financial interests, and largest trade deficit and national debt — all of this accompanied by lowered student scores in math, science, language skills, and historical and geographical knowledge.

Both the writer of the article and the readers in the comments section struggle to put their fingers on exactly what has happened in the West, and to America in particular. There's Jewry to blame, and cultural Marxism, of course, but others attempt to blame invasion by other races or the mere presence of other races as playing a large role, as well.

This is pure self-deceit, because it fails to own up to the single biggest factor (along with Jewish predations) behind it all: Jew-like White greed, particularly of the Anglo-fascist variety.

Think about this: other than Jewry, every foreign race being castigated by White nationalists was either coerced into the West (Black slaves) implicitly let in via open borders (Hispanic migrants) or explicitly invited (H1B Visas) out of the greedy economic imperatives of greedy Whites and Jews.

Additionally, all of the cultural filth that pours forth through our television sets, on billboards, on supermarket checkout stands, the pornography on the Internet, etc. exists in our faces as a consequence of greed — those eager to put their own enrichment, self-aggrandizement and vain quest for luxuries before the health of the society.

Greedy White corporatism, along with Globalist State Capitalism, have plundered American industry and jobs and exported them overseas in quest of higher profit margins, and turned the U.S. economic system into a shell casino economy, and the financial sector into one vast Ponzi scheme rigged by the Fed.

Then there’s White-sacrificing, State Capitalist, military-industrial complex wars (lately Mideast wars for Zionism) that have grown the State into an all-consuming leviathan, turned the country fascist, and polarized the citizenry.

Jewry played a massive role in all of this, but never would have gotten very far without average Whites eager to sell their own souls, line their own pockets, and lay down with the Jewish snake to do so.

Judeo-Christian Zionism, Judeophile liberalism, multi-culturalism, political correctness...all just smokescreens and intellectual rationales clung to by craven Whites to rationalize the selling of their souls to Jewry.

When large segments of their modern, post-Greco-Christian fellow Whites are at the root cause of their own race's demise, what can White nationalists do? What can they say? Intellectually, they're in a bind that is impossible to escape.

It’s a horrible thing to realize that masses of your own White “family” would cut your throat in collaboration with the Jewish predators for a buck, but there it is...which is why anyone looking for root causes needs to look to vainglorious, Jew-collaborating Whites, and then calculate if they can be de-Judaized peaceably, or if its going to take a return of the Greco-Christian sword.

And deep down, sadly, we all know the answer to that, too.

The Greco-Christian warrior ethic and moral authority is eventually going to return. The only question at this point is how much time is going to be wasted on intellectually bankrupt dead ends like White nationalism and Judaized conceptions like liberal internationalism and Judeo-Christian-Zionist "civilization."

The alcoholic's rock bottom, "deflation at depth" is near. And so is the consequential spiritual Western resurrection.

***

Jewry has systematically taken control of the Fed, the petrodollar is the world’s reserve currency, hence Jewry has systematically taken control of world currency.

Who the hell let this happen? The powers that be in the GOP, supposedly the nation’s paternal party, HAD to know that the Jewish menace was taking control of the purse strings…and happily went along because they loved all that filthy lucre that Jewry was pumping out via Greenspan/Bernanke/Jewish witchdoctor economics easy money policies.

Meanwhile, Jewry was systematically taking control of the banks so that it controlled the channels of money distribution from the Fed, and could enrich itself in the process.

From within its base in the Democratic Party, Jewry literally took control of all of the monetary choking points of society, and the sh*t-for-brains, lily White GOP watched them do it.

THIS is why the answer to our problems is hard traditional Christianity with zero tolerance for Jewry, and more importantly, zero tolerance for its greedy collaborators.

Only the process of Christian naturalization has any hope whatsoever of making society allergic to the ear-whispering Jewish serpent or his non-Jewish shyster, charlatan-racket or corporate criminal racket equivalent.

One of Rupert Murdoch’s most senior European executives has resigned following inquiries by the Guardian about a circulation scam at News Corporation’s flagship newspaper, the Wall Street Journal.

The Guardian found evidence that the Journal had been channelling money through European companies in order to secretly buy thousands of copies of its own paper at a knock-down rate, misleading readers and advertisers about the Journal’s true circulation.

The bizarre scheme included a contract in which the Journal persuaded one company to co-operate by agreeing to publish articles that promoted its activities, a move which led some staff to accuse the paper’s management of violating journalistic ethics and jeopardising its treasured reputation for editorial quality.

Advertisement: Story continues below Internal emails and documents suggest the scam was promoted by Andrew Langhoff, European managing director of the Journal’s parent company, Dow Jones and Co, which was bought by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation in July 2007. Langhoff resigned on Tuesday...MORE...LINK------------------------Neocon snakes have no moral or ethical scruples: Money-worshipping Rupert Murdoch caught in yet another greedy newspaper scandal